Sant v R [2014] NSWCCA 261

Sant v R [2014] NSWCCA 261

The sentencing judge did not sentence the applicant for pre-charge conduct, had regard to the charged period and the relevant sentences imposed on related offenders, and was entitled to assess the applicant as more culpable than Delia, McEwan and Thompson. The differences in sentences were explicable by the offenders' respective criminality and subjective circumstances, and the judge accepted and took into account the applicant's ill health by reducing the sentence; no appealable error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Not Less Than a Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 'parity in Sentencing' 'pre Charge Conduct in Sentencing' 'ill Health and Hardship in Custody' 'standard Non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'drug Offences'] ['supply of Not Less Than a Commercial Quantity of Methylamphetamine' 'parity in Sentencing' 'pre Charge Conduct in Sentencing' 'ill Health and Hardship in Custody' 'standard Non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge sentenced the applicant on an erroneous factual basis by taking into account offending outside the charged period.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying principles of parity by comparison with sentences imposed on related offenders.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave inadequate weight to the applicant's ill health and hardship in custody."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not sentence the applicant for pre-charge conduct, had regard to the charged period and the relevant sentences imposed on related offenders, and was entitled to assess the applicant as more culpable than Delia, McEwan and Thompson. The differences in sentences were explicable by the offenders' respective criminality and subjective circumstances, and the judge accepted and took into account the applicant's ill health by reducing the sentence; no appealable error was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']